# Healthcare Reform Down In Flames? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004 "2010-12-13T17:45:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/281 "2010-12-16T15:14:23Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I did not say I personally **know a church** where there are no child molesters. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Not every church is mostly kiddie-diddlers, you know. \*\*In fact, none that I know of are. \*\* Not even the Roman Catholic church. Got anything else? Maybe something relevant? Now would be a good time to link to that hospital in Florida that denied a woman cancer treatment because she didn’t have health insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/282 "2010-12-16T15:30:49Z")
Interestingly, it seems that conservatives tend to give more money to charity than liberals. They also tend to donate more blood. (Possibly this is because they tend to be more religious, and it turns out that religion is a better indicater of personal generousity than bleeding heart liberalism.) See: [Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?](http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1) from ABC’s 20/20. (I believe this is also in line with other studies.) ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/283 "2010-12-16T15:33:38Z")
First: Obama’s bill was NOT a reform of American healthcare. It was rather, a complicated system to finance the present system (which is a ragbag of Federal programs). It left in place all of the problems that cause the American healthcare system to be costly and inefficient. For example: -the role of the American legal system (torts). Lawsuits can be brought against anyone involved in treating a patient-from the drug manufacturer to the physician, to the hopsitals. Medical professionals are forced to carry huge insurance policies to protect themselves-in the case of some specialties (like neurosurgeons), the annual insurance bill can exceeed $350,000. This cost must be passed on to ratepayers. -the expensive review of medical procedures. For example-I see a dermatologist every 6 months (routine skin cancer screening). I must see my primary care physician to OK this-otherwise, the insurance will not pay. This results in the cost of another PP visit-stupid and costly. -the cost of treating the uninsured: this includes: illegal aliens, homeless people, drunks, and criminals. None of these groups pay anything toward their healthcare. In Boston, public hospitals receive 100% reimbursements for care extended to homeless alcoholics, many come to emergency rooms 7-10 times per year. This cost is passed on to ratepayers. Is it societie’s best interest to spend hundreds of thousands on people who destroy themselves with alcohol? So, I think we can do much better than Obama’s bogus bill. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/284 "2010-12-16T15:46:10Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > So, I think we can do much better than Obama’s bogus bill. Who is the “we” in that sentence? Of course there is better than Obama’s bogus bill. Unfortunately, the previous administration didn’t bother, the party in opposition couldn’t be bothered, and neither will Palin in 2012. You (as the opposite of we) left it up to Obama to come up with a bill that he could pass, it wasn’t even the bill he wanted. Now, instead of realizing the faults of the bill and working to make it better, people are actively trying to make it worse. Actively trying to underfund it, to strip it of anything useful, gut it, then stand proudly and proclaim that the bill was a failure. Kudos. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/285 "2010-12-16T15:55:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Interestingly, it seems that conservatives tend to give more money to charity than liberals. They also tend to donate more blood. (Possibly this is because they tend to be more religious, and it turns out that religion is a better indicater of personal generousity than bleeding heart liberalism.) > > See: [Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?](http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1) from ABC’s 20/20. (I believe this is also in line with other studies.) 2006 called, they want their study back. The key finding in that study was that conservatives donate predominantly to churches and religious organizations. Strip out religious donations and liberals were a head slightly, but then that would be obvious because conservatives gave all their money to the church. It was also fuzzy on what makes a person conservative or liberal. Which brings up a weird side question: If conservatives are so generous, why are they so resistant to donating to the government (a non-profit)? Church helping the homeless == good Government helping the homeless =/ good What does this suggest? That we need a national non-profit health insurance system that conservatives could voluntarily pay in to? But besides all that, it has nothing to do with the latest charge of liberal hypocrisy. If a study found that liberals were more likely to be tax dodgers it might carry some weight. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/286 "2010-12-16T16:11:43Z")
> [@HRoark43](#): > > It’s all about accepting reality. The rich generally have a better standard of living. Why bitch at the Government when you can just decide to work harder and make more money? What ever happened to self-sufficiency? It went out the window when we started having a defacto caste system in which the payscales are such that pay is decoupled from work. My wife was raised as a Randian conservative until she entered upper management at a Hotel management company. She reversed her views becoming practically a Socialist as it became clear that the amount a worker was paid entirely the inverse of how hard they worked, with the housekeepers working harder than the desk clerks, who worked harder than managers who worked harder than the upper managers who worked harder than the CEO. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/287 "2010-12-16T16:25:07Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > It went out the window when we started having a defacto caste system in which the payscales are such that pay is decoupled from work. My wife was raised as a Randian conservative until she entered upper management at a Hotel management company. She reversed her views becoming practically a Socialist as it became clear that the amount a worker was paid entirely the inverse of how hard they worked, with the housekeepers working harder than the desk clerks, who worked harder than managers who worked harder than the upper managers who worked harder than the CEO. With all due respect, anyone who swings between being a “Randian” and a socialist (even if just "practically) is just going from one wingnut position to another. If that’s the basis of your argument, it rests on the shaky ground indeed. About as shaky as the idea that we have a caste system for pay in the US. Not to mention that people aren’t and shouldn’t be rewarded for how “hard” they work, but by how much their work is valued by the people purchasing it. I can work my ass off creating a great new computer operating system, but if no one wants to buy it, or if a million other people create one that’s just as good, I’m not going to get paid much for it. If that bothers you, you live in the wrong country. That system ain’t changing. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/288 "2010-12-16T16:27:40Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > The key finding in that study was that conservatives donate predominantly to churches and religious organizations. I don’t think this is true. > [@](#): > > Strip out religious donations and liberals were a head slightly As a percentage of income conservatives are ahead even if you exclude all donations to religious entities. And it should be noted that some money donated to religious institutions is donated to the poor, while a lot that is given to secular causes is for the rich (e.g. museums). > [@](#): > > It was also fuzzy on what makes a person conservative or liberal. No, it wasn’t, according to the article. The most generous states were almost all “red states”. Also, “people who disagree with the statement, “The go vernment has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.” And again, this study is in line with other studies which have found the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/289 "2010-12-16T17:13:44Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > …Sadly, no one gives a shit about colorectal cancer. Indictment pending. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/290 "2010-12-16T17:17:54Z")
Museums are for the rich? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/291 "2010-12-16T17:26:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > …If that bothers you, you live in the wrong country. That system ain’t changing. With all due awe, **John** , that just ain’t so. It is changing. We are changing it. Taking a lot longer than we had hoped. We could use your help, if you’ve nothing better to do. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/292 "2010-12-16T17:36:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Museums are for the rich? Not officially, but that’s who tends to use them. At any rate, it’s not for the poor. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/293 "2010-12-16T17:40:42Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > With all due respect, anyone who swings between being a “Randian” and a socialist (even if just "practically) is just going from one wingnut position to another. If that’s the basis of your argument, it rests on the shaky ground indeed. About as shaky as the idea that we have a caste system for pay in the US. > > Not to mention that people aren’t and shouldn’t be rewarded for how “hard” they work, but by how much their work is valued by the people purchasing it. I can work my ass off creating a great new computer operating system, but if no one wants to buy it, or if a million other people create one that’s just as good, I’m not going to get paid much for it. > > If that bothers you, you live in the wrong country. That system ain’t changing. There were other things that aided her conversion, primarily getting away from the influence of her parents, but this experience was really the turning point that showed her that many of the things she had been taught, (such as the only reason people are poor is that they are lazy) were objectively untrue. I’m not necessarily arguing that pay scales should directly reflect amount of work one put in. If it did I’d be in trouble. I am more arguing against the idea that all someone needs to do to go from rags to riches is just work harder. So that those people who are well off are inherently more worthy than those who aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/294 "2010-12-16T17:41:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > With all due awe, **John** , that just ain’t so. It is changing. We are changing it. Taking a lot longer than we had hoped. We could use your help, if you’ve nothing better to do. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. No, it’s not. It’s not changing such that people are rewarded simply for how “hard” they work. And if there is some effort to change the system in that direction, you can be sure that I will stand in the way of that change. You and I agree on a lot of things, but this isn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/295 "2010-12-16T17:46:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Museums are for the rich? In a way, yes. Say you buy a painting by the widely famed pre-Raphealite artist Uigo Fellatio. For insurance purposes, you have it valued by one of the half-dozen or so respected professionals. That is the value of the painting, its been evaluated by a professional Art History major. You have to pay a premium for insurance, of course, but since you already live in a very secure community with the very latest tech security, you can expect them to be more or less minimal. The value goes up, of course, since Fellatio is deader than DOS. You bring in the same guy to assess the value, cut him a check, and that’s the new value. Then you croak, off to accept your eternal reward for a life of ease, greed and avarice. But you have donated the painting to the Too Bright wing of Art Museum. You get to write off a nifty portion of its value, since its charitable. And nobody questions that value, because it is professionally assessed and, hey! you paid the premiums that support that assessment! So it must be really worth 11.5 Godzillabucks! Then the great unwashed can file by, stare, and think “What is it with these guys and fat chicks, anyway?” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/296 "2010-12-16T17:51:20Z")
The example I’m fondest of is Andrew Carnegie, who put out a lot of money to build libraries for the edification of the working class. Libraries that were open when they were at work, closed when they were not. Gee, thanks, Andy! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/297 "2010-12-16T17:53:05Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You are absolutely incorrect. First, Filburn was the farmer. Second, the decisions says nothing that suggests that the government can _force_ you to grow wheat against your will. That is the opposite of _Wickard_. Once Filburn was engaged in commerce the federal government can then regulate it. If Filburn refuses to grow wheat then he is not involved in commerce. Fair point. Wickard was the Secretary of Agriculture. And you’ve identified a potential difference, but it’s not clear if it’s dispositive yet. The inactivity in _Wickard_ was Filburn’s presumed inactivity in buying wheat in interstate commerce because he was growing it himself. Based on that LACK of activity, Congress could regulate the growing of wheat. Now, does that also mean that Congress can directly regulate the NON-growing of wheat? We’re not so sure. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/298 "2010-12-16T18:58:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fair point. Wickard was the Secretary of Agriculture. > > And you’ve identified a potential difference, but it’s not clear if it’s dispositive yet. The inactivity in _Wickard_ was Filburn’s presumed inactivity in buying wheat in interstate commerce because he was growing it himself. Based on that LACK of activity, Congress could regulate the growing of wheat. > > Now, does that also mean that Congress can directly regulate the NON-growing of wheat? We’re not so sure. No. The activity was Filburn growing a product for which there was a market. The production of this product affected the price of wheat. The government made him stop growing wheat. Contrast that with the government _forcing_ a farmer to grow wheat, or even forcing the farmer to purchase wheat on the open market. In the current lawsuit the commerce clause cannot apply to individuals who do not produce anything. If government can force individuals to purchase a product or a service for no other reason than being alive then there is absolutely no limits at all on federal power. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/299 "2010-12-16T19:42:59Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > If government can force individuals to purchase a product or a service for no other reason than being alive then there is absolutely no limits at all on federal power. I don’t think that’s true, because the Supremes have ruled in recent cases that activities that were not primarily economic in nature (or something to that effect - I’m probably not being precise) don’t fall under the commerce clause. However there’s very little that’s not commercial so you’re close to being right. As I’ve noted in another thread, from a purely logical standpoint, this law is not far from what’s already been ruled to be part of the CC. What’s changing is that people are realizing that, as you point out, if we accept this, then there’s very little the government can’t force people to do. It’s hard to understand why the government can’t force people to buy cars, for example. But what happened is that the courts built this edifice of legal doctrines at a time when no one ever thought the government might try to intrude in such ways. Now, in an era of increasing government interference with our lives, people are struggling to find some way out, some way to keep the old rulings for those specific cases but yet find a way to allow some interference from government commerce-base control. But from a legal standpoint, it’s an uphill climb. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/300 "2010-12-16T20:18:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t think that’s true, because the Supremes have ruled in recent cases that activities that were not primarily economic in nature (or something to that effect - I’m probably not being precise) don’t fall under the commerce clause. > > However there’s very little that’s not commercial so you’re close to being right. I can’t think of one thing that the government cannot claim is somehow linked to commerce…even the number of children we have or the use of birth control. If the government can regulate activity as well as inactivity then there is nowhere left to hide. We must only hope that a benevolent government will not use its powers to make us do X. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > As I’ve noted in another thread, from a purely logical standpoint, this law is not far from what’s already been ruled to be part of the CC. What’s changing is that people are realizing that, as you point out, if we accept this, then there’s very little the government can’t force people to do. It’s hard to understand why the government can’t force people to buy cars, for example. I think you are incorrect here. Can you point to some examples? As I’ve pointed out this reading of the commerce clause is the polar opposite of _Wickard_. One cannot legally infer that the opposite of _Wickard_ is identical to the court’s ruling in that case. People who do not have insurance simply are not engaged in commerce WRT insurance companies. I agree with you that, logically, there may be little difference but, legally, there is a world of difference. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=16)